Balance in the Media

[Aurielius]

Again, Marharth, I think you may be right that Americans would be more willing to have their taxes raised if they had the faith that the taxes would go to the places they expected them to go. Why have we allowed corporations to take over not only the media but to a large extent our government as well, in one way or another. Who is in charge here? Hmmm?

Grannywils

You may be willing to have your taxes raised to fund questionable governmental programs but I am sure as hell not so willing to do so. A restructuring of the tax system back to a period where corporations such as GE actually pay their fair share would not go amiss. The simple fact is that the government, especially this administration is spending money we don't have and that is unsustainable by any economic model. So like in any household budget when you are in a shortfall you cut all unessential budgetary expenditures or someday the creditors come calling with the past due bill in hand.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Aurielius

[grannywils]

Again, Marharth, I think you may be right that Americans would be more willing to have their taxes raised if they had the faith that the taxes would go to the places they expected them to go. Why have we allowed corporations to take over not only the media but to a large extent our government as well, in one way or another. Who is in charge here? Hmmm?

Grannywils

You may be willing to have your taxes raised to fund questionable governmental programs but I am sure as hell not so willing to do so. A restructuring of the tax system back to a period where corporations such as GE actually pay their fair share would not go amiss. The simple fact is that the government, especially this administration is spending money we don't have and that is unsustainable by any economic model. So like in any household budget when you are in a shortfall you cut all unessential budgetary expenditures or someday the creditors come calling with the past due bill in hand.

 

Just to clarify, I am certainly not willing to have my taxes raised to fund questionable governmental programs. I believe what I said was that I thought Americans might be more willing to pay higher taxes if they had faith enough in their government to believe that the taxes would be used for what they were being asked to pay them for. I made no reference to any specific program and had none in mind. I most assuredly agree with you when you say a restructuring of the tax system is required in order to ensure that corporations pay their legitimate share. However, we seem to have gotten off onto a tangent somewhat unrelated to the original topic, so I apologize for any part I have played in that.

[marharth]

Again, Marharth, I think you may be right that Americans would be more willing to have their taxes raised if they had the faith that the taxes would go to the places they expected them to go. Why have we allowed corporations to take over not only the media but to a large extent our government as well, in one way or another. Who is in charge here? Hmmm?

Grannywils

You may be willing to have your taxes raised to fund questionable governmental programs but I am sure as hell not so willing to do so. A restructuring of the tax system back to a period where corporations such as GE actually pay their fair share would not go amiss. The simple fact is that the government, especially this administration is spending money we don't have and that is unsustainable by any economic model. So like in any household budget when you are in a shortfall you cut all unessential budgetary expenditures or someday the creditors come calling with the past due bill in hand.

Tax cuts surly aren't helping anything...

 

How do you plan on raising taxes on corporations when they own the entire house and senate? GE probably has 60 percent or more of our politicians working for them.

 

Let me remind you that Obama didn't start his term with a clean slate of debt. Obama certainly isn't helping, but blaming it all on this administration is completely wrong.

[csgators]

The root cause of our financial problems all come down to our debt based monetary policy.

 

 

"Let us say that the Federal Government needs $1,000,000,000 ($1 billion) more, after it collects the taxes, to continue financing its projects. Since it does not have the money, and Congress has given away its authority to create it, the Government must go to the Federal Reserve, which is now in charge of creating the money for the country. But the Federal Reserve does not just give its money away! The Bankers are willing to deliver $1 billion in money or credit to the Federal Government only in exchange for the Government's agreement to pay it back - with interest! The Congress then authorizes the Treasury Department to print $1 billion in U.S. bonds, which are then delivered to the Federal Reserve Bankers.

 

The Federal Reserve then pays the cost of printing the $1 billion (about $1,000), and makes the exchange. The Government then used the money to pay its obligations.

 

Now, what are the results of this transaction! The $1 billion in Government bills is paid, but the Government has now indebted the people to the Bankers for $1 billion, on which the people must pay interest! And, of course, the interest is not created! "

[grannywils]

Marhath and Csgators, while you have mangaged to strike upon yet another subject that is near and dear to my heart, we seem to have drifted quite a bit off topic. While this does not really trouble me a great deal, I am afraid that this one could get out of hand in a heart beat; and yet another of my threads would end up being locked. So, if you really do want to get into the subject of taxation and the Fed, etc., please try in some way to relate it to the OP topic, and if at all possible try to maintain a balance, so that we can at least keep the thread open a little longer.

 

Thanks, I really enjoy reading both of you as well as all the rest of the posters.

[TrooperScooperMKII]

IMHO, it would be a good idea to trace the whole debacle back to its origin. I'm not exactly well informed (and also quite young) but I think that it goes back to Reagan times at least. So, where did it go wrong?

Possibilities:

Iran Contra Affair

Reagan got away with murder, or at least funding murderers...

 

McCarthy's HUAC

 

Illegal detainment of US citizens, sounds eerily familiar...

 

Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, not as blatant as the others, but still...

 

and finally, the good old Alien and Sedition Act by John Adams.

 

I would guess that the Cold War tensions pushed us over the edge- McCarthy et al have basically polarized the country through fear and ignorance.

[Harbringe]

When it comes to balance in the media its connected to the concepts of free speech and freedom of the press and though people think they understand what they are , there really is a disconnect between what they are and why they are.

 

When the US was in the run up period to the American Revolution ,the people were living in a time where in through the manipulation of currency, ie Colonial script (dollars) was made illegal by the English monarchy in favor of Bank of England gold, and the only way for the colonists to fight back initially was by having rallies , stump and/or soap box speeches and printing up pamphlets or newspaper articles deriding this or questioning its legality.Now the crux of everything they did was that they were speaking the truth and that's the reason there is Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press protected in the Constitution ,not to protect free speech or freedom of the press but to protect your ability to speak the truth.That's the disconnect between the what and the why, for as much as they can be vehicles for truth , in the modern day people have figured out they can be vehicles for falsehoods.

 

This is why there will never be balance in media because those with vested interests have co opted it to speak their truth and not the the truth.

 

Sadly it probably never dawned on the Founding Fathers that the tools they gave could be so twisted in pursuit of falsehoods , when they had to struggle so hard and give so many lives to have the truth win the day and now it seems America is right back where they started.

[marharth]

Marhath and Csgators, while you have mangaged to strike upon yet another subject that is near and dear to my heart, we seem to have drifted quite a bit off topic. While this does not really trouble me a great deal, I am afraid that this one could get out of hand in a heart beat; and yet another of my threads would end up being locked. So, if you really do want to get into the subject of taxation and the Fed, etc., please try in some way to relate it to the OP topic, and if at all possible try to maintain a balance, so that we can at least keep the thread open a little longer.

 

Thanks, I really enjoy reading both of you as well as all the rest of the posters.

I completely forgot this was about the media, sorry about that...

[Sync182]

Well...

 

I'm Australian, and conservative. That makes me a target of left-wing activists, nevermind that I'm a moderate conservative. :-/

 

The media will publish what it wants to publish. Basic news stories can only really be told one way - factually.

 

HOWEVER, many journalists are, by the very nature of their jobs, left-leaning. They therefore, whether knowingly or unknowingly, put their own bias into the stories they write. This goes doubly-so for commentators and columnists.

 

It is also a fact of life, at least here in Australia, that whenever a panel of Left and Right is assembled, the RIght will barely get a word in, and when they do they are howled at by the Left.

 

It's all in the wording (and don't go me for my choice of gender!):

* The woman fell off the ledge (factual - no bias)

* The poor woman fell off the ledge (left leaning - now gunning for sympathy)

* The stupid woman fell off the ledge (right leaning - the woman can't have been paying attention)

 

One fact, three ways of expressing it, and two will draw an emotional response.

 

Balance in what is reported by media outlets will only occur when reporters and journalists stop using emotive language in their reports.

[grannywils]

Sync182, You have hit it right on the head. I'm American and Liberal, but neither our nationalities nor our politics matter here. What you say is so true. "The Media will publish what it wants to publish". "Basic new stories can only realy be told one way - factually".

 

And, unfortunately, your example was spot on. The story about the woman falling off the ledge would have been reported just as you say, in all three cases. (BTW, thank you for not picking a political example). One fact, three ways of reporting it.

 

You have gotten right to the gist of what I am looking for; balance in media outlets. Your last sentence says it all. ""Balance in what is reported by media outlets will only occur when reporters and journalists stop using emotive language in their reports" Why is that so difficult?